Hi, I'm nadan10, and I'm very excited to participate in this discussion.I make it a point, as a forum poster, to list both the reliable links from which I can support my information, and any logical fallacies that have become apparent during debate. I should also say that I prefer to debate alone. So, to my fellow atheists, I humbly request no assistance in debates I appear to succeeding in.

For my first post on the forum, I'll take what seems to me to be the obvious cheap shot from my position.Creationists are calling evolution a fairy tale!?

I should say first that I rarely respect any such mindless insults in what should be an intellectual debate. Additionally, Anyone skeptical enough to call evolution a fairy tale should surely agree that creationism fits into this category as well.

Lets take slightly humorous first look at the debate by defining each position, and deciding which sounds more like a fairy tale:

Theory of the origin of species according to popular beliefs in biology and evolutionism: Minuscule "macro molecules" which arose through abiogenesis, gained the ability to grow and multiply leading to change in the "gene pool" of populations from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (1)(2)

Theory of the origin of species according to popular beliefs in creationism:A giant invisible man in the sky made everything in 7 days. (3)

Hi, I'm nadan10, and I'm very excited to participate in this discussion.I make it a point, as a forum poster, to list both the reliable links from which I can support my information, and any logical fallacies that have become apparent during debate. I should also say that I prefer to debate alone. So, to my fellow atheists, I humbly request no assistance in debates I appear to succeeding in.

Welcome to the forum.

For my first post on the forum, I'll take what seems to me to be the obvious cheap shot from my position.Creationists are calling evolution a fairy tale!?

I should say first that I rarely respect any such mindless insults in what should be an intellectual debate. Additionally, Anyone skeptical enough to call evolution a fairy tale should surely agree that creationism fits into this category as well.

Well let's also look at it from the other side. How many websites and forums from your side go up calling creation and God, plus all Christians things much worse? If you cannot take it, you should not dish it out.

Lets take slightly humorous first look at the debate by defining each position, and deciding which sounds more like a fairy tale:

Interesting. But here you are not dealing with amateurs that run this forum. I can show fairytale stuff in evolution. Stuff because of your bias, you will refuse to see.

Theory of the origin of species according to popular beliefs in biology and evolutionism: Minuscule "macro molecules" which arose through abiogenesis, gained the ability to grow and multiply leading to change in the "gene pool" of populations from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (1)(2)

Thanks for the definition. You most think that after 5 years of debating that no one here knows what evolution is, correct? That some how just because we disagree, we are uneducated morons, right? I could say the same about you as well. But unlike you, I don't stereotype people to that point. I let them paint their own picture. But here with your first post, I don't even have to do that as I see total arrogance on you part. Posting and thinking that some how you are fixing to give us a lesson in evolution. And that some how you will have all the answers to every question ever asked, right?

Theory of the origin of species according to popular beliefs in creationism:A giant invisible man in the sky made everything in 7 days. (3)

No worse than the a claim of millions of years of evolution for which will be a "process" no man will ever observe. You can show us:1) Micro-evolution.2) Mutation.3) Speciation.

But never will you be able to show us the process for any kind of animal turning into another. And your god did it type excuse will always be: It's because it takes to much time.

When you can show this process, then you can say creation is a fairytale. But all you can currently do, and will never be able to go beyond, is dig up bones and make up stories.

Do you know why 90% of every evolution movie has to be pure animation? It's because evolution is only true in a virtual world. What you don't have evidence for, you have to animate. And 90% animation speaks volumes of how much evidence is actually missing for the claims that are made. I work with animation, I know what it takes to make it. Imagination.

It makes me laugh every time I see a animated evolution movie that tells a "fairytale" story of how each extinct animal lived, how they ate, hunted, and died. As if the bones could sit around with the evolutionists at late night camp fires and tell these stories. They are no more provable than the claim of a million years of goo to you evolution. Which by the way, is not:

1) Testable. The Miller experiment proved nothing because he had to use non-real world conditions to get his results (filtering toxic goo of from the rest so that what was left could be made to look like life could form in it). That's not science. That's cheating and then lying about the results. If a creationist had done it this way, we'd never hear the end of it. And you would also be saying: Why not do it again and see how it had to be done? Which would be a logical response. One in which I ask the same question. Why not do it again and show the world that no cheats had to be used. Unless cheats were used. Which would explain why Miller was the only one who did. And without proof of abiogenesis, evolution will not work because life cannot evolve if it has no starting point.miller_0013.jpg18.61KB213 downloads2) Repeatable. It seems funny to me that no one has repeated what Miller did. You know why? the cheats involved to repeat the test would show it up for the fraud that is it and always was.3) Observable. The millions of years of evolution, which is a process we will never see, is more than 50% of what evolution is. But because no one can comprehend it, it's put away like it's not a problem because of the time god of the universe some how did it. I guess it must be the "fairytale god".

If you think it's going to be a piece of cake debating here. You would be mistaken. But you would not be the first to make such a mistake.

Evolution and evangelism.

So if you come here to convince us through debate to believe as you do, are you not trying to evangelize us?

Evangelize: To explain ones beliefs to another in the hope that they might wish to adopt them. To share news of something in order to convince someone to join or otherwise accept your point of view.

So what is the goal of this thread? To convert people? Where is that in any part of the scientific method? It's not there because only a religion needs to search out all those who do not think as they do to try and convert their way of thinking. True science only needs to show evidence, and allow the person to decide. It does not need human intervention, nor does it need someone to seek out non-believers to convince them.

Now since you know I can match just about anything you say in your attempt to make Christians look worse than atheists. Are you going to skip this so we can debate more scientifically? Or will you continue to try and insult and demean in which I will ban you for because it's a waste of the forum time?

I'm closing the thread because it's an example of what we do not allow here. To have civil debates you cannot attack each others beliefs personally. It proves nothing. For each opponent can go on forever doing this, but to what point is it really done?